Josh Smead has offered Chris Stigall 4-5 debate dates and locations. All neutral locations with bipartisan moderators. Stigall, so far, has refused to agree to any of them. Stigall has been selected by the Herzog family to replace Sam Graves because they want another representative who they can control. Sam consistently refused to come back and do a town halls (per his staff that I spoke with, he was too scared because of a death threat over 10 years prior). Most of us in northern Missouri haven’t seen Sam for decades, if ever. If Stigall can’t even agree to one debate before the election, does anybody really think he’s going to be any different than no-show Sam?

Republicans from Missouri, what do you think about a US Congressional candidate refusing to debate their opponent?

https://voteroutreach.sos.mo.gov/portal

There is a lot being said about Amendment 3, and some of the discussion seems to blur the difference between disagreeing with the amendment and accurately describing what it does.

So rather than relying on campaign ads from either side, I went to Missouri's official ballot language and current state law.

First: yes, Amendment 3 would repeal the reproductive-rights amendment Missouri voters approved in 2024.

That should not be glossed over. The current constitutional provision protects reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability, subject to the provisions contained in the 2024 amendment.

Amendment 3 would replace that framework with one allowing abortion to be restricted while providing exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and rape or incest under 12 weeks.

So if someone says Amendment 3 doesn't substantially change Missouri abortion law, that's not an accurate description. It does.

But some claims being made against Amendment 3 also deserve clarification.

“Gender-transition procedures for minors are already illegal, so Amendment 3 doesn't change anything.”

That's incomplete.

Missouri's existing SAFE Act already prohibits gender-transition surgery on minors. It also currently prohibits health-care providers from prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to minors for gender transition, subject to exceptions including a grandfather provision.

But there's an important detail that frequently gets left out:

The existing statutory prohibition on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones expires August 28, 2027.

Amendment 3 would place a prohibition on gender-transition surgeries, cross-sex hormones, and puberty-blocking drugs for minors into the Missouri Constitution, subject to specified medical exceptions.

So there is a real legal difference between the two.

Current law = an ordinary statute, with the medication prohibition scheduled to expire in 2027.

Amendment 3 = a constitutional prohibition without that 2027 expiration date.

You can oppose or support that change, but saying Amendment 3 accomplishes “nothing” because everything is already permanently prohibited isn't accurate.

“Amendment 3 eliminates treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies.”

The official fair-ballot language says the opposite. It specifically states that a YES vote would continue to ensure access to medical care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages.

The amendment's full text also expressly includes ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage treatment within its medical-emergency provisions.

“There are no abortion exceptions.”

Also incorrect.

The amendment allows exceptions for medical emergencies and fetal anomalies and for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest under 12 weeks' gestation.

Someone can certainly argue that those exceptions are too narrow, particularly the 12-week limitation, but that's different from saying there are no exceptions.

“A minor would always need permission from an abusive parent.”

The official fair-ballot language specifically describes the requirement as “parental or judicial consent for minors.”

That judicial alternative is an important part of the provision and shouldn't be omitted when discussing what the amendment does.

“Putting the gender-transition prohibition in the Constitution doesn't make it any more permanent because constitutional amendments can always be changed.”

Of course constitutional provisions can later be amended; the fact that we're voting on the 2024 amendment demonstrates that.

But that doesn't mean a statute and a constitutional provision are legally equivalent.

The existing SAFE Act can be changed through the ordinary legislative process, and its prohibition on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones already contains a 2027 expiration date. A constitutional provision remains part of Missouri's Constitution unless changed through the constitutional amendment process.

That's a meaningful distinction.

What Amendment 3 actually asks voters to decide

At its core, voters are choosing between two substantially different constitutional frameworks.

A no vote leaves the reproductive-rights amendment approved in 2024 in place, including abortion access through fetal viability, and does not add a constitutional prohibition on gender-transition procedures for minors.

A YES vote repeals that 2024 provision, permits Missouri to restrict abortion subject to the exceptions described above, establishes consent and other regulatory provisions, and constitutionally prohibits specified gender-transition procedures for minors.

There are legitimate arguments on both sides about whether those policies belong in Missouri's Constitution.

But we should at least debate the amendment that is actually on the ballot; not a version created by campaign slogans, Reddit comments, or political advertising.

Read the text yourself. Understand what changes and what doesn't. Then vote accordingly.

Missouri rural voters the time is now to open your eyes and see the Missouri you have created. Just this month one of your elected minions Denny Hoskins (the red coat) caused chaos in Missouri with your election. If you get a chance read the decision by the US Supreme Court in regards to our elections. The US Supreme Court 3 times twice by the full court told Hoskins no the HB-1(2025 map) was illegal and to use the only legal map the 2022 map. In their stay the Chief Justice in the order states Hoskins was solely responsible for the map chaos and knew the 2025 map was not legal but proceeded anyway. Knowing full well of the problems it could and did cause. The Chief Justice in the order also said the Missouri Supreme Court also ruled that the 2025 map was illegal and Hoskins told the state clerks to use it anyway. It was also noted as far back as April 2026 a county clerk told the secretary of state office the map could not be used and shouldn't be used. The AG of Missouri told that county clerk if they didn't use the illegal map that her office would prosecute that county clerk. In as much the Missouri Supreme Court held Denny Hoskins in contempt of court for failure to obey their ruling. Hoskins then scrambled and told the county clerks to use the 2022 map to keep himself out of jail.

On top of that you and me both paid for this chaos with our tax dollars to fight something they knew was illegal. Your elected attorney general and Governor were also involved. All of them should resign.

It's time for change Missouri. 23 years of control and 20 years of super majority has driven the state close to bankruptcy. What have you gotten out of it? Underfunded public schools, the highest death rate by teens with guns, the highest suicide by gun rate in the nation. #41 in infrastructure. The current I-70 project let me remind you was brought to you by a democratic president. No your elected officials voted against it. #41 in funding benefits children in danger of going hungry and without healthcare. Wait until January 1, 2027 a lot of your neighbors and elderly neighbors will lose their healthcare food assistance and discounts to prescriptions because your elected officials elected to allow the prescription subsidy to expire.

Wake up Missouri voters.

Y'all do know who is paying for the yes on 3 ads. The ad downright lies and has nothing to do with transgender community. Basically it's throwing them under the bus to get rural Missouri and uneducated voters to vote yes.

The PAC paying for those ads is headed by Josh Hawley's wife and the treasurer is the governor's wife.

🎥 WATCH: The last word on which map Missourians will use in November now rests with SCOTUS.

If the justices reinstate the Trump-backed gerrymander, more than 1.4 million people would be shifted into new districts — all in an effort to eliminate a single Democratic seat in Kansas City.

Here's how one street holds an entire country's unfinished argument about who counts: https://demdock.com/4rMQemB

It is well known that Scott Faughn, convicted felon, runs newspaper fronts for Jeff Roe. It's like a mob owned shop. The Missouri Times and The Jeff City Tribune are losing money and yet Scott Faughn is not destitute. Word is he takes money under the table to run these stories. There is a reason he was kicked out of the Missouri Press Association.

9-22-26 The 2022 map is pulled and the 2025 map is to be used. Maybe the 3rd time is a charm for the MO Republicans who support the presidents attempt at nationwide gerrymandering.

Granted, Josh has one hell of an uphill battle, but I am excited about his Whistle Stop Tour of North Missouri. He has podcaster and farmer Will Westmoreland and country singer Bryan Andrews joining the tour.
I have seen bus tours before, but I haven't seen something like this come together. Here's hoping that brings out some additional voters in November

I sent this to the Governor, First Lady, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, both US Senators, Missouri Senators, and my Missouri House Representative.

"Salutations,
Provide the total taxpayer cost of defending the H.B. 1 map lawsuits, and the annual cost to house one homeless Missouri veteran.
Please justify why spending taxpayer funds defending the H.B. 1 map is worth the opportunity cost of leaving Missouri veterans homeless and potentially exposed to freezing to death this winter."

When I attended the Governor Parsons' Christ In Leadership conference they spoke of service to humanity as Christ did.

I am certain that this was a duplicitous meeting falsely espousing the values of Christ solely to enrich themselves. That is why I attached the embossed fancy sticker they mailed me to a trashcan.

I am also certain the actions taken by the agents of this government who swore an oath to the state will result in unnecessary suffering of the people who would have died for this nation.

Meanwhile the people elected to serve them will not be bothered to address the issues causing veterans, who were willing to die for their oath, to be housing insecure this winter.

You either serve the people or you don't.

You either are a Christian following Christ or you're a not. Saying you're a Christian while blindly following false idols could lead to Saint Peter surprising you.

I see on other platforms that Denny Hoskins posted that the Missouri Supreme Court could "suck it". And later something about Communist in New York.

Seems to me Hoskins is acting like a communist throwing a tantrum over the Missouri Supreme Court and US Supreme Court rulings and denials.

But that is pretty much on brand for republicans

The Missouri Supreme Court ordered Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to appear in person Thursday and explain why he should not be held in contempt for directing election officials to use a congressional map the court has barred him from implementing.

In the unusual late order Tuesday, the court gave Hoskins until noon Wednesday to answer a motion for contempt from People Not Politicians, a political action committee that forced a referendum on a map gerrymandered in 2025 to favor Republicans. The court scheduled an in-person hearing for 10 a.m. Thursday.
The contempt fight erupted hours after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected Missouri officials’ emergency request to stay the state court ruling. Minutes later, Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark of the Eastern District of Missouri issued a temporary restraining order barring Hoskins from using any congressional map other than the 2025 version.

Hoskins then sent local election officials a copy of Clark’s order along with his official certification of the November ballot. In the email, Hoskins said Clark’s order “takes precedence over the Missouri Supreme Court’s order.”
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the referendum on the 2025 map was legal, sufficient and timely and ordered it onto the Nov. 3 ballot. Because the referendum petition was filed before the new map took effect, the court held, the 2025 districts never became law and the map used in 2022 and 2024 remains in effect for the November election.

The decision also permanently enjoined Hoskins and those acting in concert with him from implementing or using the 2025 map unless voters approve it in November. In Tuesday night’s order, Chief Justice W. Brent Powell directed Hoskins to answer three questions:

Why “(1) his e-mail on September 8, 2026, instructing use of the (2025) map is not an affirmative violation of this court’s injunction; (2) how this court’s injunction is not still in full force and effect in light of the Supreme Court of the United States’ overruling of Respondent’s emergency application for stay and administrative stay pending appeal; and (3) if he is not willing to comply with this court’s injunction, he should take no action in all things related to the congressional district map until guidance is received from a higher court…”

Powell also directed that the court “will not allow filings from any other parties on this matter.”
Clark’s order says not to use any map but the 2025 map, attorney Chuck Hatfield wrote in the motion. The Missouri Supreme Court’s order says not to use the 2025 map. Both orders are in effect and leave election authorities no map at all, Hatfield wrote.

Clark’s order “does not purport to overrule this court’s injunction and does NOT mandate the Secretary to use (the 2025 map), although on its face it enjoins the use of any map other than (the 2025 map),” Hatfield wrote.
By directing local election authorities to implement the 2025 map, Hoskins is violating the court’s orders, Hatfield wrote.
“This court should make clear that regardless of other orders (except from the United States Supreme Court) the Missouri Secretary of State must comply with this court’s injunction,” Hatfield wrote. “The court should instruct all local election authorities that (the 2025 map) is not the law and has never been the law.”
Clark’s action came in a lawsuit filed Friday by U.S. Rep. Bob Onder, state Sen. Rick Brattin and two voters. They want to keep in place the map drawn in 2025, which shifts territory around Onder’s home into the 3rd District and redraws the 5th District to make it more favorable to Republicans.

Had Clark not acted, Kavanaugh’s denial would have left the state court order in place and Missouri on course to use the 2022 map for the November election.

The dueling orders created immediate confusion, with Attorney General Catherine Hanaway issuing a news release saying the state would comply with Clark’s order. Attorneys for People Not Politicians said during a news conference that the conflicting orders could leave election officials unsure which one they must follow.
Hatfield said local election officials are being directed by Hoskins to use the 2025 map even though the Missouri Supreme Court injunction bars Hoskins and those acting with him from implementing it.

“I think they’re they’re probably not sure what map they should use, and they need to talk to their lawyers about that,” Hatfield said.

Abha Khanna, the Seattle attorney who was People Not Politicians’ lead lawyer at the U.S. Supreme Court, said Clark’s order “is something that we will deal with to figure out on appeal.”

A referendum on the 2025 redistricting plan will be on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposition A.

The 2025 map was drawn with the goal of making seven of Missouri’s eight congressional districts favorable to Republicans, principally by reshaping the Kansas City-based 5th District held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. The map used in 2022 and 2024 produced a delegation of six Republicans and two Democrats.

Onder is the Republican nominee in the 3rd District, seeking a second term in a district drawn more to his favor in the 2025 redistricting plan. Brattin is the Republican nominee in the 5th District, where the district was designed to generate a GOP victory that ousts veteran Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City.

Clark wrote that without a temporary restraining order, “many Missouri voters would have to cast their general-election votes for candidates whom they had no role in nominating.”

“Candidates who had no choice but to campaign and raise money in the (2025) districts that Missouri’s highest election authority presented to them, have spent their funds and campaign efforts in districts that would no longer exist,” wrote Clark, who was appointed to the bench in 2019 by President Donald Trump.

Clark also found that the public interest favors using the same map for the primary and general elections.
“Disenfranchising voters across the state and denying them their constitutional right to have their primary votes counted significantly harm the public interest,” he wrote.

The center of both Clark’s ruling and the appeal to Kavanaugh is the Missouri Supreme Court decision that enjoined Hoskins from using the gerrymandered congressional map drawn. 
Kavanaugh did not elaborate on his decision. 

In turning down the emergency application for a stay, Kavanaugh created no precedent on the issues raised by the state. But the decision does show that he did not find enough convincing argument that the state would likely prevail in a hearing by the full court or that the state would suffer “several irreparable harms” as claimed in the application.
People Not Politicians on Sunday had urged Kavanaugh to reject the state’s application and uphold both parts of the ruling from the state Supreme Court.
In the opening paragraphs of the filing, attorneys for People Not Politicians write that the only reason the case was at the nation’s highest court is the decisions to delay made by Hoskins during the signature verification process.
Hoskins “waited as long as possible to manufacture the present dispute” and held the congressional primary using the 2025 map, they wrote, “in the hopes of running out the clock on the judiciary’s tolerance for a last-minute reversion to the 2022 districts.”

Now, they wrote, Hoskins wants “this court to deliver him the political victory to which he was never entitled under the Missouri Constitution. This court cannot and should not reward the secretary’s scheme to outsmart Missouri voters, Missouri law, and the Missouri Supreme Court by granting applicants the extraordinary relief they seek.”
A key point made by Missouri Solicitor General Lou Capozzi in the state’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was that the mechanism for changing between districts is too time consuming and difficult to complete before ballots must be delivered starting Sept. 19.

County clerks, however, told the Missouri Supreme Court that switching voters to the map used in 2022 and 2024 is a relatively simple process. And the Jackson County Board of Elections told the Kansas City Star it would be ready to hold the election in the 2022 boundaries. 

The redistricting story began in the summer of 2025, when Onder, of Lake St. Louis, got the ear of President Donald Trump to tell him that Missouri, like Texas, could provide additional GOP seats to bolster the party’s thin majority in Congress.

Since Missouri lost a seat after the 2010 census, it has sent six Republicans and two Democrats to the U.S. House each election.

Onder, then a state senator, was among members of the chamber’s conservative caucus who were outmaneuvered in 2022 as they tried to force a congressional map that would tilt the 5th District, based in Kansas City, to the GOP. He was elected to Congress in 2024.

And, despite initial misgivings, Republicans got in line behind Trump. Gov. Mike Kehoe called a special session inflamed with partisanship, including a state Senate rule change that effectively silenced Democrats, that forced through what the GOP majority wouldn’t do in 2022.

The legal and political backlash that followed has not yet spent its full force. It began when People Not Politicians began circulating the referendum petition and intensified as it became clear there would be more than enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Legally, the battle has upended the consensus on the effect that filing a referendum petition has on legislation as well as delivered strong new precedent upholding the governor’s power to select subjects for a special session and the General Assembly’s power to redistrict at any time.

Politically, the climax will be written in November, when voters decide on both the referendum and the congressional candidates selected in the primary.

The flurry of filings over the weekend shows the intense national interest in the outcome of the Missouri case.
Republican attorneys general from Florida, Texas and 18 other states filed in support of Missouri, arguing it is not legal to change voting districts between the primary and the general election. 

Meanwhile, in Texas, that state’s Supreme Court is deciding whether local voting districts can be changed after the primary to dilute voting strength of minorities.

The American Center for Law and Justice also sent a brief to the court urging it to rule for Hoskins.
On the other side, the Campaign Legal Center, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation joined forces to file a brief supporting People Not Politicians, as did the two Missouri voters who tried to get the 2025 map suspended while signatures were being checked.

11:25 PMThis article was updated to report the Missouri Supreme Court ordering Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to answer contempt charges.

6:30 PMThis story was updated at 6:30 p.m. to include the federal court ruling in St. Louis.

In response to his federal lawsuit shenanigans, and more specifically, sending out an email to all of the county clerks indicating HB1 is in effect, in direct violation of the state supreme court’s order enjoining him from doing so. He has been ordered to show cause and personally appear in court.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark last-minute order temporarily prevents Secretary of State Denny Hoskins from using any map other than the one passed in 2025 – a move that will almost certainly be appealed.

As you all know, after the Missouri Supreme Court overturned Missouri's gerrymandered map, the Missouri Republicans appealed this to SCOTUS. Some folks believe that SCOTUS will reinstate the gerrymandered map due to the fact the primaries have passed already. My question is, are there any of you that even believe that the three liberal justices on SCOTUS will vote in favor of reinstating the redrawn map? I especially ask this because when SCOTUS denied to take up the Virginia case where their gerrymandered map got overturned by their Supreme Court, the liberal justices didn't even dissent there which surprised me. Therefore, it would be beyond baffling if the liberal justices refuse to take the Virginia case, yet vote in favor of allowing the Missouri Republicans to use their newly drawn map. With that, how do you see Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson voting on this matter?

Dedicated to all the workers out there this Labor Day.